Kurt
Junior Member
Re: LCS-1
Why do you need a whole new expensive ship class design if some corvette-equipped ships, for single tasks like ASuW, MCM, ASW and special operations with communication links, fire- and extraction support, can do the job? I know, we Europeans are bean counters, but I don't see the breakthrough over networked corvettes or frigates.
Following Cerbrowski, corvettes would have been the choice because increased ship size is 3 dimensional, while the bomb effect is so large that the longest dimension makes an aircraft carrier take only 4 times more hits than a corvette for the same destruction (as far as I know). Providing more difficult to target vessels helps every defence in the missile age if they are capable of keeping the enemy uncertain about ship specifications. That's easy because every enemy sees 1-2 dimensions of a 3 dimensional object, making size distinction difficult, especially if jamming and EW is used deliberately.
The downside of all small ships is that they need more energy and thus fuel per payload movement per time and have thus much reduced see endurance. From this point of view frigate size makes sense because the US intends to operate them from bases near hostile coasts. If they were to operate from confined friendly coasts the limited endurance per sortie would be a no problem.
So it must be frigate-size endurance-level, having one mission package is corvette equipment-level, two missions is frigate equipment level. It reduces the number of vessels necessary to deploy a capability. The problem is increased vulnerability because less vessels are less targets. That greatly improves enemy missile targetting solutions because the size differences between a corvette and a frigate don't translate into significant surviveability differences per ship, overall numbers do.
The Independence LCS seems a good idea for solving the endurance problem, but could borrow the idea of TEU storage room from the Freedom LCS or any other corvette/frigate or container ship. What I honestly don't understand is the speed requirement. Speed means reduced stealth by noise and a bow wake visible on radar for both classes, plus very much reduced endurance. It would make sense as acceleration for improving missile countermeasures and thus light turbine engines that do have little adverse effect on payload capability. So what is the cruising speed of these vessels?
The big question behind all these questionmarks is, what are the intentions of the LCS idea? Going littoral, OK. But so far that sounds like having fly amanita for dinner. They don't seem surviveable nor numerous and expendable with a looming other threat nearby. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Why do you need a whole new expensive ship class design if some corvette-equipped ships, for single tasks like ASuW, MCM, ASW and special operations with communication links, fire- and extraction support, can do the job? I know, we Europeans are bean counters, but I don't see the breakthrough over networked corvettes or frigates.
Following Cerbrowski, corvettes would have been the choice because increased ship size is 3 dimensional, while the bomb effect is so large that the longest dimension makes an aircraft carrier take only 4 times more hits than a corvette for the same destruction (as far as I know). Providing more difficult to target vessels helps every defence in the missile age if they are capable of keeping the enemy uncertain about ship specifications. That's easy because every enemy sees 1-2 dimensions of a 3 dimensional object, making size distinction difficult, especially if jamming and EW is used deliberately.
The downside of all small ships is that they need more energy and thus fuel per payload movement per time and have thus much reduced see endurance. From this point of view frigate size makes sense because the US intends to operate them from bases near hostile coasts. If they were to operate from confined friendly coasts the limited endurance per sortie would be a no problem.
So it must be frigate-size endurance-level, having one mission package is corvette equipment-level, two missions is frigate equipment level. It reduces the number of vessels necessary to deploy a capability. The problem is increased vulnerability because less vessels are less targets. That greatly improves enemy missile targetting solutions because the size differences between a corvette and a frigate don't translate into significant surviveability differences per ship, overall numbers do.
The Independence LCS seems a good idea for solving the endurance problem, but could borrow the idea of TEU storage room from the Freedom LCS or any other corvette/frigate or container ship. What I honestly don't understand is the speed requirement. Speed means reduced stealth by noise and a bow wake visible on radar for both classes, plus very much reduced endurance. It would make sense as acceleration for improving missile countermeasures and thus light turbine engines that do have little adverse effect on payload capability. So what is the cruising speed of these vessels?
The big question behind all these questionmarks is, what are the intentions of the LCS idea? Going littoral, OK. But so far that sounds like having fly amanita for dinner. They don't seem surviveable nor numerous and expendable with a looming other threat nearby. Correct me if I'm wrong.
